Never been to Karlsplatz yet, though to many places in Germany. Geo is indeed a very useful information. I'm not at all against utilizing it as far as possible.
I'm just trying to climb up the mountain along a different track: - Orthogonal (right term?) routing bw intra- and inter- - Preferably no need for extra mapping infra other than DNS(-extended) - Local intra-domain addressing - ... We'll meet around at the summit to complement each other, I'd hope. On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:53 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What value is provided by the orthogonality between intra- and >> inter-domain > routing? > > Independent inter-/intra-domain routing scalability. > > Note, the current FIB is the combined table for intra- and interdomain next > hop forwarding. That's ecaxtly what I have in mind too: > Enable next hop lookup by either one table-offset (dest. is in a different > geo-patch) or by three table-offsets (dest. is in the same geopatch) > - in the end, of course, - no matter whether it is an intra-domain > destination or an external destination. > Dae, > Even if you want to apply Dijkstra, you could do this based on BGP (in this > case BGP has just to advertise links/tunnels/LSPs) rather than on a > link-state protocol like OSPF. > My TARA-topology would be the combination of differently filtered topologies > that where disseminated by BGP. E.g. of five topologies (of different > zooming levels). > The reason is again the too large size of one flat topology. Imagine the > number of ASes times the average number of bordering with neighboring ASes. > That is too much information which btw isn't needed. > As I pointed out before: Given I want to travel from Munich, Karlsplatz, to > San Francisco, Golden Gate Bridge, and while I haven't yet entered the > plane(link) to San Francisco,international airport, I don't need to see the > city map of S.F. nor of any other city I would fly over. That's more than > 99,9 % of topology information that I don't need to know. > And yet I can find a stretch-1 route to my destination. > > > Heiner > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- > Von: Toni Stoev <[email protected]> > An: IRTF RRG <[email protected]> > Verschickt: Sa., 8. Mai. 2010, 11:09 > Thema: [rrg] Inter-domain routing > > Dae Young, > > Nice to hear from you. > >> o Packets would be appended by an AS number of the destination at >> exiting its own AS. > > Packets would need to be globally destined at sending. Destination "AS > number + > intra-domain locator" is just fine. So destination AS number should be set > initially in the packet. This is quite end-to-end, right? > >> o DFZ routers sees only AS numbers in determining the next hop router. > > OK. > >> o The destination IP address would be examined only after the packet >> has entered the destination AS. > > Let's say "locator" instead of "IP address". > >> RFC1955 by Bob Hinden back in 1996... >> Curious to know why this was rejected in IPNG? > > I'm not curious about past rejections, but if you know there's any good > essence > for our creativity, say it please. > > Heiner, > >> What value is provided by the orthogonality between intra- and >> inter-domain > routing? > > Independent inter-/intra-domain routing scalability. > > Are you a proponent? > > Best regards to you both. > Cheers listeners. > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > > -- Regards, DY _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
